July 2008 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
Chris Reed says it's strange that there has been so little discussion in California of the federal law that seems to ban states from regulating employee health benefits in the way the governor and the Democrats in the Legislature appear poised to do. He's right. Reed also says there is a very good chance that a federal judge will strike down any law that requires employers to provide coverage or else pay a fee to the state. He's right about that, too.
So why are the governor and the Democrats proceeding down this path anyway? First, some of them actually seem to believe that they can write the law in a way that passes court scrutiny. But even if they can't, there is a decent chance that a Democrat will be elected president in 2008 and a Democratic Congress will remain in power. And if that happens, it's possible if not probable that the feds would pass a law allowing California's plan to go forward.
Posted by dweintraub on December 12, 2007 3:53 PMCopyright © 2007. All Rights Reserved. Sacbee.com | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use